role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 27, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 27 October 2009 Mardi 27 octobre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

STANDING ORDERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

CORPORATE TAX

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

JOB CREATION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

AGENCY SPENDING

TAXATION

VICTIMS OF CRIME

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

INJURED WORKERS

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

TOURISM

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROY E. CARTER MEMORIAL PARK

CLIMATE CHANGE

SCHOOL PLAYGROUND

POVERTY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

BREAKFAST FOR BURSARIES

SPORT ACADEMY PROGRAM

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TRANSFERS ON WIND UP), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

(TRANSFERTS À LA LIQUIDATION)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GOOD GOVERNANCE /

LA SAINE GESTION PUBLIQUE

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

GARDE D'ENFANTS

TAXATION

WOOD HARVESTING

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TUITION

CHILD CUSTODY

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

PENSION PLANS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ANIMAL HEALTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SANTÉ ANIMALE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the Buddhist prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

Mr. Milloy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 183,

An Act to revise and modernize the law related to apprenticeship training and trades qualifications and to establish the Ontario College of Trades / Projet de loi 183, Loi visant à réviser et à moderniser le droit relatif à la formation en apprentissage et aux qualifications professionnelles et à créer l'Ordre des métiers de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. John Milloy: It's a pleasure to participate in the third reading of this bill, which would establish Ontario's first college of trades. At the outset, I would like to indicate to the Legislature that I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Oakville. I'd like to publicly thank him for his work on this bill, as well as my former parliamentary assistant, the member from Richmond Hill. As members are aware, there was a shuffle of parliamentary assistants a number of weeks ago. Both of them have done great work in terms of moving this piece of legislation forward.

Just to put this bill in a bit of context, it's not surprising that it's all about the economy. I think everyone here in the Legislature recognizes that that's the focus of most of the work that is happening here at Queen's Park. Of course, when it comes to the economy and preparing Ontario to move forward, we have to make sure that we have one of the most highly educated and highly skilled workforces imaginable. There's no way anymore that we can compete on the basis of low wages or even a low dollar. We have to prepare ourselves. Certainly education at all levels is very much a part of it.

Today, of course, we are talking about education around the skilled trades, which members may be surprised to know represent 10% of our workforce. In fact, here in the province of Ontario we have more than 150 apprenticeable trades which people can pursue in a variety of areas, not simply in the construction trades which we often think of, but in the automotive sector, the service sector and a whole variety of sectors moving forward.

I think members are aware that there have been numerous reports that have come to light over the past number of years which have predicted that we may see a shortage in the area of skilled trades, and that as Ontario moves forward, for a variety of reasons, partly demographic, but also just the overall demand that's increasing here in our society, we are going to see shortages of skilled trades.

Certainly the government has taken this very seriously. When we came to office in 2003, one of our commitments was to increase the number of apprenticeship registrations by 25%, and I'm pleased to report that in 2003 we had 17,100 individuals coming forward to be apprentices, and as of 2009, we now have 28,000 individuals who came forward this year to be apprentices, to register. In fact, right now in the province of Ontario, we have 60,000 more apprentices than when we took office.

Now, is there more that needs to be done in terms of building this system of apprenticeship and the system of skilled trades? Certainly there is. I think it's worthwhile just to give a bit of context to the bill and how it came about. A number of years ago, my predecessor–the now Attorney General—in his role as Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, was confronted with one issue around the area of skilled training, and that's the issue of compulsory certification.

Although many members of this Legislature may understand what compulsory certification is, for those watching this debate on television, I'll explain: It's the system whereby someone is obligated to be fully trained and to receive their qualifications in order to practise a trade. One, of course, can think of the trade of an electrician. You wouldn't want someone coming to your home or business to fix your electrical system who is not a fully certified electrician. That is a compulsory trade.

There are a variety of other trades where someone may pursue the apprenticeship option and may write their certificate of qualification, may do that, but in the end they also have the option of pursuing that trade without that qualification.

My predecessor, faced with this issue of compulsory certification, of which trades should be certified and which ones shouldn't—because there's interest in having others join this list of about 20 that are compulsory—asked a leading labour expert by the name of Mr. Tim Armstrong, a former head of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, to take a look at this issue.

What Mr. Armstrong came back with was a very interesting take on the whole apprenticeship system. He said that although there is a need for a system to review compulsory certification, there are a variety of other issues in the training sector: things like ratios, something that we discuss often here, the number of journeypersons who are needed to train an apprentice; things around training standards, how do we set training standards for apprentices; and the issue of diversity, the fact that we don't have enough women and that we don't welcome new Canadians into the trades as readily as we should and that we need work to be done there.

In terms of research, we don't have the research of what's going on in our skilled trades. How are people being trained, and how are people moving through the apprenticeship system and completing, or perhaps not completing, their studies? He looked at the issue of enforcement and said that we don't properly enforce the rules and regulations.

What Mr. Armstrong said was that rather than deal with one of these issues surrounding apprenticeship, the province of Ontario should embark on a very creative and bold idea and establish a college of trades, a self-regulatory body similar to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Ontario College of Teachers, something that came about not that long ago; a self-regulatory body which would bring everyone together.

It would bring all those involved in the skilled trades—employers, those who are training apprentices, and obviously we want to hear from apprentices themselves—everyone who is involved, bring them together into a college that would set up mechanisms and set up a structure to examine all these issues, and in a sense, be the real point for apprenticeship training and skills training in the province of Ontario.

At the core of its mandate, as well as dealing with a whole variety of issues, would be the idea of promoting the skilled trades, particularly among young people, and encouraging them to pursue apprenticeships and to finish their apprenticeships.

The report that Mr. Armstrong brought forward certainly captured the imagination of many here in Queen's Park, but also out in the sector, and it was a very, very welcome report. As a follow-up to that, we asked Mr. Kevin Whitaker, the current chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, to go out and consult widely on the idea of a college and what its structure might be. I want to very publicly thank Mr. Whitaker for his work, as well as all the individuals who came forward during that consultation, during Mr.

Armstrong's consultation, and subsequently during the committee hearings on this, the input that we received on how we might establish this college. Of course, as a result of this work, as a result of these hearings, we're now at third reading, where we have a bill in front of us which would establish this structure, which would modernize our apprenticeship system.

I'll just take a minute or two to talk about what this college would look like and how it would function. Its membership would include both certified journeypersons and persons who employ them, or who sponsor or employ apprentices, and thanks to debate here and in the committee, we have welcomed the proposal that apprentices would have a place at the table as well. The college, in setting it up, would ensure balanced representation, including employers and employees. Representatives from the four skilled trades sectors include non-affiliated members representing the public and a representative of our college of applied arts and technology, which is so crucial in terms of apprenticeship.

The proposed governance structure is based on a review of models from other provinces in Canada and other countries, as well as other college models in Ontario, including those regulating health care providers, teachers and early childhood educators. The college would be governed by a board of governors with the chief executive officer leading a dedicated staff to carry out the activities of the college.

Divisional boards—one each for the construction, motive power, industrial and service sectors—would report to the board of governors, advising it on issues relating to their respective sectors. Trade boards representing individual trades or groups of trades in a sector would advise the divisional board on issues relating to its trade. I think this recognizes that some issues affect all trades, while others are particular to and may arise only in one of the four sectors or even in an individual trade.

Appointees to the college may have particular stakeholder constituency backgrounds and would be selected based on that expertise; however, their first duty would be to serve the college and the public interest. Appointments would be balanced, reflecting different workplace realities across the trades, the appropriate proportions of unionized and non-unionized employers and employees, small and large businesses, rural and urban settings. The college of trades would provide an open, systematic and transparent process to deal with critical issues affecting the trades sector. I've mentioned some of those, which would include compulsory certification and apprenticeship ratios.

We have heard from the industry, we have heard from apprentices, we have heard from all those partners involved in the province of Ontario, about the strength of our apprenticeship system, but we've also heard about the need for further reform. The only way that reform is going to take place is if we pull together all partners, all those involved in the sector, and provide them with a forum to have open and honest debate and to reach a way to move forward on a number of these pressing issues which are so crucial to allowing more young people to come into our skilled trades program.

I'm very, very pleased with Bill 183; it is the result of a great consultation, both before the introduction of the bill, and of course, through discussion at the committee level and debates here in the Legislature. I think it will go a long way forward in ensuring that we have a very strong skilled trades sector here in the province of Ontario. I urge all members of this Legislature to support this bill as it comes up for third reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Robert Bailey: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to third reading debate of Bill 183, the college of trades act. Our party supports anything that will help make sure Ontario has the educated and trained workforce that we will need to compete in the 21st century. We have long believed that the trades are not getting the credit or promotion they deserve as a career that will be able to provide a high-paying job for our young people of the future.

We have constantly called for the government to lower the journeyman-to-apprentice ratio from three to one to one to one. This government has refused to act to date, denying many young people a chance to become qualified tradespeople and denying many businesses the chance to grow and prosper in this modern economy. We were glad, at least, to have the government acknowledge that this new college bill, if passed, will have the ability to set apprenticeship ratios. I would hope that the college would soon set this as a priority.

We are also disappointed that the government passed up the chance to accept any amendments that were brought forward by the opposition that would have, in our opinion, made this bill much better. As Linda Franklin from Colleges Ontario said:

"As many of you will know, the Conference Board of Canada, in a study a couple of years ago, estimated that we will be short 360,000 skilled workers by 2025 and over half a million a few years later. A disproportionate amount of that shortage is in the skilled trades. So it's really critical that in the years ahead we get more women, more underrepresented groups and more groups who traditionally don't see the trades as a viable option for them to consider and choose a skilled trade for their careers."

In terms of labour shortages, those numbers are really frightening. We need to be able to work together with all sectors of this economy to make sure that we are ready to meet this shortage. This will be a huge challenge. Now isn't the time to play partisan politics when it comes to skills training. As an example, Colleges Ontario, which was here last night, had a real concern with making sure that they had a say in developing curriculums at our community colleges. For example, in my riding, Lambton College would then have a seat at this board to make sure that they were listened to. We have not to date got any such commitment from the government.

Many people don't realize that our community colleges play an important

part in the delivery of our apprenticeship programs. They were legitimately concerned that they would be called upon to play a new role without any new resources being put behind them. Again, to quote Linda Franklin:

"We think there has to be a strong connection between the regulatory body and the education community. Without that strong connection, we think there are real risks that the training and education of the trades will not be effectively coordinated with the regulatory function. Opportunities to address major issues related to attracting students to the trade could be lost because of the absence of that connection." She went on to say, "As advocates and promoters of the trades on an ongoing basis, our colleges want to ensure that the growth of apprenticeship is not inhibited."

We put forward, as a party, a number of amendments that would have accomplished what Colleges Ontario wanted, and the government rejected these.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association, a group many of us know well, had raised concerns with a cookie-cutter approach to training that may not reflect the actuality. The incoming president of the home builders, Mr. James Bazley, said:

"The current regulatory system governing apprenticeship and training across the province is not perfect. There are numerous challenges we face, such as labour shortages in some trades. These shortages are the result of several factors, including:

"—the negative public perception of a career in construction;

"—interprovincial trade mobility issues;

"—an aging workforce; and

"—the rigid system of apprenticeship training, where there is currently a three-to-one journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio in many of the trades, such as plumbers, electricians and sheet metal workers."

The Home Builders' Association is a fairly forward-thinking organization that wants its members to prosper into the next century. He went on to say:

"Bill 183, which has now passed second reading, represents a potentially serious problem for the provincial residential construction industry. We believe that the current legislation is seriously flawed."

He stated in his deputation to the committee:

"First, it appears that the Ontario College of Trades bureaucracy, as set out in this legislation, is far too politicized to be effective or fair. We have serious concerns about the appointments council, which will be responsible for appointments to the board of governors, the divisional boards, trade boards and the roster of adjudicators. The nine individuals that the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities appoints to the appointments council will have the ability to appoint members to the boards and will therefore affect the orientation of the entire college structure."

Our party agreed with this position. If the college of trades is set up in this manner, it will be to the detriment of it.

The second concern that they expressed: "The Ontario College of Trades does not adequately consider the significant differences in labour geography. Outside the few major cities in the province, it is not unusual that tradespeople do a wide variety of work to ensure their ability" over time "to earn a livelihood. For example, a certified carpenter in Quinte may also do other tasks, such as installing siding or roofing. However, this legislation does not recognize these provincial differences." I don't believe that the government gave this concern the consideration they should have.

We all agree that a licensed carpenter in Kenora should have the same training level as one in Toronto, but the government would hear none of that. We think this was a mistake on their part.

It's interesting that the Ontario Home Builders' Association asked the government to conduct a serious economic impact analysis on Bill 183 before it was passed. On our side, we think you should know and be aware of the economic ramifications of any new bill or regulation, so we don't think it is out of line to make this request. But it was again rejected. Our first amendment called for a neutral party to do an economic analysis of this piece of legislation, and the government, in their so-called wisdom, turned it down.

One of the most interesting criticisms of Bill 183 came from a concerned group of tradespeople who have religious objections to joining unions and other organizations and have serious objections to being forced to join this college of trades. These citizens raised very valid concerns in committee and to us individually that, frankly, Ontario in the past has recognized this through many labour laws. For example, you can have a religious objection to joining a union but you may make a donation to a charity that is equal to the dues you would pay to that union. That's recognized in legislation.

I don't think it is unreasonable for this same exemption to apply to the college. I understand that the government, through the ministry, made commitments in some way that the new college would deal with a number of these issues through bylaws and regulations, but I would be worried when they are unwilling to put that in writing as of yet. I brought forward an amendment that would have offered the religious protection to this group of workers. Again, the government did not see fit to accept it.

One of the issues that our party raised and submitted through an amendment that the government didn't agree to pass had to do with the democratic makeup of the college board. We had proposed that the board be elected by the members of the college. That is fairly common for other colleges. David McDonald from the Merit OpenShop Contractors Association said, "All colleges in this province are completely democratic. Everybody votes. Everybody votes for how much they're going to pay; everybody participates.

This creature of government that the government is creating is completely appointed: The four levels of boards and the panels who are going to adjudicate compulsory trades and ratios are completely appointed by government, yet it's an arm's-length government institution. This is nonsense. It's ridiculous and it is a political powder keg, because you can change the appointment board government" through different changes in government "and you can change the whole structure and essence of the whole college."

We couldn't agree with Mr. McDonald more. We know that the college will be levying a fee on its members; it has admitted so. Of course, we think that this is a tax on tradespeople. But what is worse is that the government can't tell us how much this levy is going to be or how often it will be levied. Will it be just levied against tradespeople or will it be levied against their employers as well? For example, people who belong to a provincially recognized trade now pay a fee, I think it's every three years. There's some indication that this could be yearly, but we have no commitment on that.

The government's response is that the college will decide that. This is a college board that is completely appointed by the government, and they will get to decide how big this tax is. I think that's an abdication of responsibility.

Interestingly enough, we are told that the cost of running this new college could be as high as $40 million. No one seems to be able to tell us where that money is going to come from. Will it come out of existing Ontario community college budgets? I ran this up the flag pole yesterday with members of the college board of governors and representatives here, and I don't think they thought about that before.

I asked, "Is that $40 million going to come out of present community college funding, or is it going to be new funding that the government, in this deficit, probably will have a hard time coming up with?" No one had the answers to that. Will it be funded by a levy on tradespeople? No one seems to know that as well.

This bill raises so many questions that I'm very disappointed that they have used time allocation to try and get it through this House so quickly. This follows a pattern of this government. They will let the Legislature debate for hours issues that are meaningless to most Ontarians, but as soon as the opposition raises an issue that is serious, they cut off debate. This is the party that promised they wouldn't use time allocation; they have now used it on virtually every bill that has been sent to committee.

My party doesn't like this move to where we pass enabling legislation and then leave the details to be decided later. The old saw that the devil is in the details leaves many people with trepidation.

This government seems to have an addiction to this kind of behaviour. I would have liked to see the government stand up and say how much these fees were going to be for this new college, and not leave it up to someone else.

In closing, my party has some very serious reservations about this piece of legislation. We don't believe the government has come forward with enough of the details on how this new college will work. There are questions about the college that need to be answered, questions about apprenticeship ratios that need to be answered. The question of how big the tax on our tradespeople will be needs to be answered.

For all of those reasons, our party is against this bill, but we recognize, at the end of the day, with the government's majority, that it will pass, and we hope that it will be successful in making Ontario a leader in skills training.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honour to be able to speak to this bill this morning. As you may well be aware, our critic, Rosario Marchese, is also scheduled to speak this morning, so my remarks will be relatively brief.

The intent of this bill is to set up a college of trades to regulate the trades, to give them more say on how apprenticeship programs are run, and to set up a regulatory framework that people will understand clearly, one that we in our party would hope would advance the cause of ensuring that tradespeople are properly trained, that apprentices have a clear road to go forward to become journeypersons, and that there is, in fact, a method in place to ensure that we have skilled people who do the work that's so critical to the functioning of our society.

I have to say that, at the same time as we're discussing this college of trades, Bill 175 is coming forward to enhance labour mobility between the provinces. It strikes me that these bills are at cross-purposes. On the one hand, we today are debating a college of trades piece of legislation that will allow the trades to set standards, that will be setting out a road for people to move through training and become fully qualified.

At the same time, we have another piece of legislation that will allow people from across Canada who may not have the level of training that we want this bill to provide us with to simply come and operate as though they've had the training that's required in Ontario. I'm not saying that we have the highest level of training—we may. There already is a national program, the red seal program, that strives to have a standard level of qualification right across Ontario.

So I have to say that for all the words from the minister about the need for a college and about certification, training and regulation so that we have capable people doing this work, I have tremendous concern that, at the same time, the government is bringing forward legislation that will undermine everything that they expect this college to do. That is a tremendous problem.

With regard to the bill itself and its contents, the NDP supports an arm's-length body to deal with approvals of industry recommendations regarding new compulsory trades, journeyperson ratios, curriculum and other matters. It's not clear, and I look forward to hearing more debate, whether the new structure will be truly industry-driven or whether the new college's structure, which we see as cumbersome, will merely substitute one bureaucratic barrier for another.

It's not clear what the province's apprentices and journeypersons will get from their membership fee in this college, particularly if the government goes ahead and passes this bill on labour mobility, which in fact would undermine the standard-setting that this college is supposed to be given responsibility for.

If you look at the overview of the apprenticeship situation, Ontario's apprenticeship system provides future skills for industry and the economy and supports the provinces to better compete in the global economy by ensuring that an adequate supply of skilled workers is available. It goes without saying: If you're going to have electrical equipment, if you're going to have an electricity infrastructure, if you're going to have buildings that stay up when they're put up, then you want to make sure that you have capable and trained people actually doing that work.

Apprenticeship training itself is cost-effective, and it's an efficient method of training for industry; 90% to 95% of apprenticeship training is done on the job. The success of an apprenticeship training program is dependent on its unique combination of workplace and academic education.

The time-based workplace component of apprenticeship training is essential in that the apprentice must have an adequate period to learn from the journeyperson. In-school training must support what is taught in the workplace.

I have to say—and we've had this debate before in this House—that ensuring that you have the right ratio of journeypersons to apprentices is critical. There are people who have made the argument in the past, and I expect will make the argument in the future, that that ratio has to be radically altered so that far more apprentices can come on stream. But the reality is that if you have too many apprentices per journeyperson, those apprentices in the end become floor sweepers and coffee-bringers rather than people who are getting one-on-one training on skills that can have a huge impact on the viability of a product or a building, or on the safety of a building.

So my hope—our hope—is that with the way this act is written and the way, ultimately, the regulations are produced, we will have a college that will be able to make sure that those standards are protected.

We think that apprenticeship training must be more widely used as a mechanism to promote entry for workers new to the labour force, re-entry for workers returning to the labour force and transition for those already in the labour force.

Apprenticeship training must be promoted more effectively in the school system in order to provide opportunities for students not going on to post-secondary education in an era of high youth unemployment.

Apprenticeship training must be accessible to all. Marketing and education initiatives must be expanded to ensure that existing female, aboriginal and visible-minority employees are recognized as potential apprentices by current and future employers.

Under the Mike Harris government, the apprenticeship system in Ontario was split in two by placing industrial trades in the new act and leaving construction trades under the old Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. These actions deregulated the system and shifted the focus from apprenticeship as an employment relationship to apprenticeship as an education and training relationship. It removed the enforcement of the regulatory provisions that regulated ratios and wage rates, and it removed entry levels and duration from the legislation.

The NDP believes that skill sets must not replace whole trades. While there must be flexibility to recognize genuine new trades—

Mr. Peter Shurman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Is a quorum present?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: You're up, Peter. Talk.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I understand. I'm free to proceed?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Yes.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Compulsory certification must be significantly expanded after re-establishing whole trades. Employer-established non-regulated designer trades must come under the regulation through the established apprenticeship training programs. With that as a starting point, over time, the NDP believes that the entire system should move toward compulsory certification for most trades. Compulsory certification will ensure increased flexibility and mobility as well as higher standards, higher skill levels, higher quality and increased confidence in the apprenticeship system. Compulsory certification will also help ensure public safety and consumer protection.

I will wrap up my comments here and leave the balance of my time to our critic, Mr. Marchese.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): We're in rotation.

The member from Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate this morning and support third reading of the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009. As members will know, if the act is passed, it's going to establish the college of trades as a regulatory college, and that's going to help to modernize the province's apprenticeship and skilled trades system, something we all know is really necessary.

What the bill is about, for those who are watching at home, is promoting the trades; it's about helping the skilled trades sector succeed; and, more importantly, it's about providing more opportunity for all Ontarians—all important goals for stakeholders in apprenticeship and the skilled trades and for the province, and something that's worthy of this House's support. We've come up with a model we believe will help us achieve the goals, and it has come up after careful consideration. We've conducted thorough research on the bill.

The legislation stands on a very firm foundation of discussion with industry, with partners, participants in the skilled trades and the apprenticeship training system.

Joining us today in the members' gallery, for example, are Ken Wragge from Northridge Electric, who followed the hearings through, and Alex Lolula, formerly of the Ontario Building Trades and now with the IBEW, who followed the hearings through as well. During that process we were able to hear from a variety of stakeholders who expressed a very strong interest in the bill and brought us very valuable input and advice as to what we should include in the bill.

What we also did was examine a number of other models in other jurisdictions to see what those other jurisdictions are using, and we were examining the current state of trades and apprenticeship training in Ontario, how it's evolved over the years, and we investigated areas where Ontario can improve the process. We consulted very widely with stakeholders.

Let's just go back a little bit and see where this legislation came from and how this proposed legislation came about. That's going to help reinforce why it's important. I hope the bill receives the full support of this House.

The previous Minister for Training, Colleges and Universities, who is the current Attorney General, took the first step towards addressing a number of issues that were identified at that point in time as issues that were holding the skilled trades back. Minister Bentley called on Tim Armstrong, who we all know is a respected public policy adviser and legal counsel. He's an author and he's a recipient of the Order of Ontario. We tasked him with reviewing compulsory certification in the skilled trades.

He was asked to look at this issue with particular reference to the impact on health and safety, on apprenticeship registration and completion rates, on consumer protection and on the economic impact and other relevant factors that may influence decisions. He was asked to recommend a framework for dealing with and advising on applications for compulsory trade status, something that has been talked about a lot. He also conducted broad stakeholder consultations and engaged external advisers and labour market economists as well as federal government agencies.

He reported back to us in May 2008. What he said was, he suggested that we couldn't adequately address compulsory certification without looking at all other aspects of the system. According to Mr. Armstrong, there was "substantial potential to improve and enhance the standing and the effectiveness of the apprenticeship trades and their continued, strengthened contribution to the growth of the Ontario economy."

Out of all the recommendations he made, the most significant recommendation was to consult with the stakeholders regarding the objective of establishing a new, all-trades government institution, which has come to be known as the college of trades. He offered structural suggestions for consideration in establishing the proposed college, and what these included—and which we discussed in some depth at committee—are a board of governors with a balanced membership, and a certification role that, together with the college name, would enhance the prestige and the status of the trades.

He also wanted us to include the capacity to deal with the needs of each individual sector and the ability to establish expert panels that should consider decisions on ratios, for example, and certification; and he wanted us to discuss and consider a role for the college in enforcement and complaints on these issues.

In September 2009 we announced our intent to move forward with Mr. Armstrong's recommendations, announcing that we intended to introduce legislation that, if passed, would establish the college of trades. We appointed Mr. Kevin Whitaker as the implementation adviser. He was asked to make recommendations to the government on the college's proposed governance structure, scope and mandate. Like Mr. Armstrong before him, Mr. Whitaker also developed his recommendations after wide consultations.

He met with employer and employee organizations, with organizations that provide apprenticeship training and with experts from among the more than 150 trades in the province of Ontario today. He reviewed submissions from the public and interested parties, he held meetings and regional public consultations and he got a wide array of input and feedback. He worked with the government in conjunction with a committee of representatives of all government ministries that were involved in the apprenticeship and skilled trades system.

The recommendations he brought forward that came from this process are reflected in the bill we have before us today, the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act.

The proposed legislation retains important elements to replace the existing Apprenticeship and Certification Act and the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, standardizing governance for the sector. Under the act, the college would have a duty to serve and protect the public interest in carrying out all its objects and functions. The college membership would include certified journeypersons and persons who employ them or who sponsor or employ apprentices. Thanks to the discussion in the Legislature, at the committee level as well, and the advice that we received from a number of stakeholders in committee, membership has also been expanded to include apprentices in this province.

The college's balanced approach to governance considers the needs of employers, employees, apprentices and other stakeholders in the process. It's going to ensure balanced representation comes from employers and employees, representatives from the industrial, service, construction and motive power sectors, and it includes non-affiliated members who are representing the public.

Thanks to the discussions we also had in committee, the representation that's envisioned under the act has been expanded to now include a representative of the colleges of applied arts and technology. It includes a board of governors, four divisional boards and individual trade boards. This recognizes that some issues affect all trades, while other issues are particular just to certain trades and may arise in only one of the four divisions or to individual trades.

Appointees to the college may have a particular stakeholder constituency background and they're going to be selected based on that expertise. However, the first duty of those appointed is to serve the college and, most importantly, the public interest. Nevertheless, as in any normal decision-making process, there are going to be differences of opinion that will arise, so the governance structure is being designed to prevent any deadlock on decisions.

College appointees will reflect the diversity in Ontario society and the college's membership. College appointments would be made with attention to groups that have been historically underrepresented in the trades and are long overdue changes. They will target francophones, aboriginal Ontarians, women, visible minorities and persons dealing with disabilities. It's going provide an open, systematic and transparent process to deal with critical issues affecting the trades sector. Those that have been talked about include compulsory certification and apprenticeship ratios.

It's going to be difficult to achieve consensus on these issues, but this is the way to make it with this existing framework.

This is a huge step ahead for the skilled trades in the province of Ontario and for the employees in this province. It's worthy of the support of all members of this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: Bill 183: Having worked in industry myself for 30 years, I am very interested.

I suspect that in all things there are balance and relationship issues. The bill was introduced in May 2009 and it strikes me as—I have a lot of respect for the unions, skilled trades specifically. They're very organized and have their own educational functions and trade standards functions—and to an extent the CAW. They definitely have their place and I wouldn't want to be on the record as saying otherwise.

When I read this bill, though, I'm a bit suspicious about it because it has some inherent conflicts, unfortunately. I'll just go through a few things here.

It's sort of a monopolization of who can do what. This is in an innovative economy and a fast-moving global economy. If you look at books like The World Is Flat, talking about globalization, we need to know that we're in a different type of economy than we were, say, 20 or 30 years ago. If you look at the large manufacturing sectors—Stelco, Inco, Dofasco, General Motors—they're pretty well in some stress right now, if not completely out of business. Having worked there 30 years, I owe most of what I have to those years, and to my family as well. So I'm thinking that this isn't quite the right thing to do. I think the standards are important.

I'm just going to read some of the

preamble here: "The bill sets out a scheme for the governance of the practice of trades in Ontario through the establishment of the Ontario College of Trades and through revising the current framework of apprenticeship training and certification contained in the Apprenticeship and Certification Act...."

It goes on to say, "Part II prohibits a person from engaging in the practice of a trade designated under the act...." Does that preclude me from wiring anything or fixing my plumbing? Not yet.

Employing a journeyperson in those trades, or sponsoring or employing an apprentice: We've talked for ages here about the apprenticeship ratio issue. Let's look at best practices globally, internationally, and make sure that our young people have opportunities here in Ontario, if not in Canada.

There's the inter-jurisdictional issue now, the AIT. That's another problem, where we're trying to harmonize the standards across the provinces. I look at not just the skilled trades group but at health care, for instance. Opticians in Alberta take about four months' training; opticians in Ontario take about four years' training. They're not the same. Let's change the standards. But the colleges that train the opticians here in Ontario want the four years of tuition, not the four months of tuition like Alberta. I hope the standards will be no lower in Ontario if we agree to bring them in here. Our people are spending four years to learn the skill that's being taught somewhere else.

Some of the other professions—my son's fiancée was rejected by the Ontario College of Teachers. She didn't get into the training at Western or wherever, and she went to the United States. So we need to be a lot more versatile.

I'm concerned. If I just read through here, the next part: "Part III contains general provisions relating to the objects, organization and administration of the college and its board of governors. This

part includes provisions respecting the relationship between the college and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The board will be appointed by a council...." It sounds to me like a lot of administration here.

How is it happening today? This is all new.

By the way, it's mandatory membership, probably $200 or $300 a person. That's a tax on jobs. For me to belong to the trade and now I've got to pay $300 or whatever to belong to this new college, that's a tax on a job; I don't know what for, personally.

Then they go into this whole thing of the discipline committee. Well, wait a minute here. I recognize the college of doctors—we have a couple of physicians here this morning. The colleges of professions usually is the disciplinary body; they set the standards and the discipline for non-compliance. If a union is running it, their job primarily in the workplace, as I recall, is to guard against unnecessary discipline. How is discipline going to work in this? I think there's a conflict of interest in the very design of the role of this.

I think the best example of that is the college of teachers. When the Royal Commission on Learning talked about professionalizing the profession of educators, they formed a college, much like the college of nurses. The definition of a college or a profession is it's self-regulating, like doctors, nurses, teachers, veterinarians, opticians and optometrists. Anyway, the majority of votes on the college of teachers is actually the heads of the union. I'm not opposed—there's a structure in all things, so it's not a negative aspersion. What it's saying is, it's a conflict of their interest.

To protect the workers and the workers rights is the role, and I respect that. I dealt with it for 30 years.

There are sections of this bill that are simply redundant. If I look at the whole first section—there are over 100 sections to this bill. Look, I've gone through this thing. There's so much red tape in here it's unbelievable. There's a college to elect a college and then there's a disciplinary committee and then there are provisions for procedures for relief from sanctions. And then there is an ability here that permits appeals to the Divisional Courts for somebody who is wrongfully dismissed or something like that. I am not opposed to standards—and high standards—in the trades.

I'm proud to say that we have the red seal program across Canada. I hope it's going to be co-operative with other inter-jurisdictional commerce issues.

On the one hand, the goals of this, establishing and enshrining the standards of quality and expertise in the trades, is laudable; I agree with that. This is duplication. It's a tax on jobs. In my view, it's probably, unfortunately—and I remember, when we were discussing apprenticeship review back when we were in government. I remember meeting Pat Dillon, a fine gentleman. It would be my advice here that if Premier McGuinty would appoint him from the Working Families Coalition as the head of the college, that would complete the circle that I'm talking about. It's a payoff by Premier McGuinty for the last election and that's the fact—

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Mr. Colle, now he knows—

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order: That is not parliamentary language, impugning motive, and should be ruled out of order. You should be objecting to that kind of speech in this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I'd ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. John O'Toole: I am very reluctant to withdraw, but I will withdraw because the chief government whip couldn't even keep enough members in this House—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Would you continue the debate? Time is—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Yes.

Further debate? The member from Trinity—Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: New Democrats are going to support this bill.

But I also want to add that I'm not quite sure why the government has decided to time-allocate this particular issue. We normally have third reading debate, and we usually take a day, two or three if our members want to speak to the bill. I am not quite sure why the government was in a hurry to move a motion to time-allocate this bill so all we get is 20 minutes of third reading debate and the issue is dead.

Mr. David Zimmer: That's enough time.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We have 10 minutes to debate this bill that has taken us many—still have enough time?

Mr. David Zimmer: Oh, we've got a lot of time; 10 minutes is enough.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My good friend from Willowdale says we have a lot of time. It's easy for the governing member to say we have a lot of time because he doesn't want the opposition to have much time to debate the bill.

Even though I'm supporting it, and our party is supporting it, I just don't quite understand why you time-allocated this bill. I don't get it. I needed to make that point, member from Willowdale. I'm not quite sure what you're not understanding about the issue, but we normally debate in full on third reading. If the member from Willowdale wanted to speak, he should have gotten up and should have forced his own government members to give him time to speak, give him the level of his blah, blah on the left flank over here.

I wanted to tell you that we support this bill. It's not a perfect bill, but we believe it moves in the right direction.

New Democrats have been critical of this government for quite some time. We believe they have mishandled the issue of apprenticeship for years. We have been critical of this ministry and the minister in terms of how they've handled the apprenticeship program from the very beginning. They have given away money for programs they call apprenticeship programs which, in my view and in the view of many in the trades, were not real apprenticeship programs.

All they were obsessed with and still are obsessed with are numbers, i.e., how many register in a program, whether it's worthwhile or not, versus how many complete the program. It never bothered the government too much that many of these people going into these trades and some not-so-great trades were not completing the program. They were obsessed with registration, and never for one moment did they obsess about why they were not completing the programs. It has been a dismal failure from the get-go.

The second part of it is the Second Career program, which this minister has been talking about and bragging about for quite some time. They say that New Democrats didn't support the program. What we said about this ministry, this government, is that from the very beginning, the Second Career program was restricted so as to make sure that few people were able to apply and get into the program. In fact, in the early six months of the program only 1,100 people had applied to get into the Second Career program.

We made fun of this government because they were bragging about how great the program was, yet only 1,000 people had, within a six-month to one-year period, if I recall, applied to get into their program. Then, with the criticism of New Democrats, they stretched the criteria so as to allow people to apply. Then, lo and behold, 21,000 people apply to the program. Why? Because they made the application process less restrictive, and as a result—

Hon. John Milloy: You were mocking it way after the changes were made.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I mocked your ministry, Minister. I mocked your ministry and your government for their failure to do the right thing with unemployed people. We have unemployment at 10%, and it's going to remain so for the next two years. High unemployment, when people desperately need access to these Second Career programs in order to have a second opportunity to get a job, and what does this government do?

It closes the criteria once again, puts a cap on the program and says, "We can't do it anymore," and in the same breath it says, "We need to continue, but we need to make it sustainable." What does that mean? It means getting it back to the first six months, where fewer people will be able to apply and get into the program. That's what "sustainable" means in the words of the Liberal government. The same words applied to the Conservatives in the past as well.

I've been critical of this government in terms of what it has done. The member from Oakville, you will agree that I've been critical of you guys, and I have been nice inasmuch as this initiative is one of the better initiatives you introduced in order to make apprenticeship programs work better for people.

We believe that there's a desperate need to make this more efficient, and we believe that this college of trades will move us in that direction. We had many, many deputations from which and from whom I learned a lot, based on the presentations made by the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Coalition of Compulsory Trades in Construction, and OPSEU, which made a good recommendation that was rejected by this government.

Their recommendation was that, "given the fact that Bill 183 ... retains ministerial responsibility for apprenticeship, that there be no reduction in either the current number of positions or hours worked to administer and enforce apprenticeship agreements.... We further recommend that all employees hired under Bill 183 as employees of a trades governance structure be considered OPS members with full successor rights, seniority and pension benefits as those currently working on apprenticeship...." That was a good recommendation they made that was rejected by this government.

The Coalition of Compulsory Trades in Construction said that we should move ahead with the compulsory trades and wait and leave the voluntary trades for another day. Let's get it right, they said, and then have the volunteer trades apply for membership at a later time. It was a useful suggestion, rejected by this government. But the fact that good suggestions were made by various bodies doesn't mean that we're going to not support this bill.

The Ontario Federation of Labour said that we should separate the trades into two parts: the authentic trades and those that are not authentic. By "authentic," they meant those trades that are compulsory, those trades that require an apprenticeship program for two, three, four and, in some cases, five years; those are the authentic trades. In those trades we trust, by means of and by way of the skills that they acquire after a long apprenticeship program, versus the skill-set trades, as evidenced by the Apprenticeship and Certification Act versus the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act.

What the Apprenticeship and Certification Act does is reduce those skills into skill sets. In my view and the view of the Ontario Federation of Labour, those skill sets mean that they have less time on the job to train. It means that they get less than the two years, less than the three years, less than the four years that are required. It was a useful suggestion to separate the occupations as defined by what I said: skill sets versus the authentic trades, which are compulsory and ought to be compulsory. Useful suggestions made by various bodies were rejected.

Another suggestion that I've made for years now the member from Oakville will remember. He says, "We have gone all over the world to review what they have done." I'm not sure how well you did that, by the way, because I don't think you looked very closely at what Ireland was doing and what France was doing. By the way, I don't think you looked very closely as to what it is that Quebec is doing, just around the corner. It's only a—what is it?—six-hour drive to get to Montreal. It wouldn't take that long to get to Quebec if you had to go by plane or if you had to ride a car, and you would learn something from it.

What have they done? Modelled on Ireland and France, they have obliged corporations whose payroll is $1 million or more to put 1% of their dollars into training. Why is that good? Why is it important? Because it obliges the corporations to do the training that they should be doing to help out not just its own workers, but to help out with the lack of trades that they're going to desperately need in some of these professions, in some of the occupations, in the next 10 or 15 years.

Corporations are leaving the job of training to the government alone. It's just wrong in my mind. They have a responsibility to do training, and they should be doing it. Instead, they attack governments for not training the workers as adequately as they should be to get them into their workplaces. You get sick and tired of the government having to pay the full load as opposed to the corporations paying their fair share.

That was a suggestion, member from Oakville, that I had made quite a while ago with a bill that I introduced in this Legislature that you and many Liberals over there defeated and many Tories—all the Tories—defeated, of course. So there are useful suggestions to make it better.

You took one or two of my suggestions, and I thank you for that. You didn't do it for me; you did it for yourself because you made the bill better. What you did in one of the amendments was say that he trades can make recommendations, the trade boards can make recommendations to the divisional boards, and the divisional boards have to, within a reasonable time frame, respond. Thank you. It was good. More could have been done. That's okay.

We would have loved to have had the full hour to debate this bill so that I could say just a little more, and you didn't allow me to do that. You cut the debate, and I don't know why you did that. I regret that you did that, but I will be supporting this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 6, 2009, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Milloy has moved third reading of Bill 183,

An Act to revise and modernize the law related to apprenticeship training and trades qualifications and to establish the Ontario College of Trades.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Milloy: No further business, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1005 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: On behalf of our colleague from Mississauga—Brampton South, I'd like to introduce three of her constituents, who will be joining us this morning: Monique, Giordan and Kieran Kendal.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Nepean—Carleton and page Jeremy Pagé, we'd like to welcome his mother, Nicé Pagé, his father, Rick, and his brother Tyler to the galleries today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

On behalf of the member from Haldimand—Norfolk and page Bethany Ricker, we would like to welcome her mother, May Lynne Emiry, and her sister Gemma Ricker to the galleries as well today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Seated in the Speaker's gallery today is my nephew Nicholas Peters, my brother Joe Peters and some of his work colleagues: Joe Rajab, Carolyn Young, Catherine McEachern, Sarah Penny and Mark Cottril. Welcome to Queen's Park, all.

STANDING ORDERS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Leeds—Grenville on a point of order.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Thank you very much, Speaker. I apologize for the delay. I thought there would be more introductions, as is usually the case.

I want to reference a number of standing orders which I believe, and I would pose to you—perhaps did not violate the strict word or the broader definition of the specific standing orders but could be interpreted as definitely breaching the spirit of a number of standing orders in this place.

I'll reference 35(a), "Ministerial Statements," matters of which the House should be informed; 40(b), the distribution of materials to opposition members; standing order 48, the rights of the minority; and standing 54 with respect to notice. I had a very limited opportunity to review the standing orders this morning, and I'm sure that others would also be applicable in this situation.

This is an issue that you have spoken to, and a number of your predecessors have as well, and that's essentially dealing with an announcement made today by the Premier that specifically directs the allocation of public funds—significant public funds—in an announcement made outside of this chamber.

In referencing a number of rulings that you have made, Speaker—March 31, 2008, where you referenced a previous Speaker and quoted him at length, I'll use the quote that was in your ruling: "administrative discourtesies do give rise to 'a valid grievance of which the government should take serious note.'" In that ruling, you expressed your personal disapproval of this kind of activity, and we very much support that and appreciate your comments and your ruling.

This year, in a ruling related to a point of order raised by the member for Oshawa, who dealt with an issue, you also made reference to this in terms of the limitations placed upon the Speaker in terms of dealing with this kind of issue.

But I think that this goes well beyond the bounds. We're looking at a government that is facing a record deficit in this province. We're talking about an expenditure that could exceed $1 billion of public funds, yet the government does not see it appropriate to make that kind of a significant spending announcement in this place.

We are very much concerned, as well—we can't talk about the absence of specific ministers to deal with these issues, so I will not get into that issue, but again, this is an issue showing disrespect for the opposition members in this place. We express very serious concern and I want that to be on the record with respect to this matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The government House leader on the same point of order.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm actually unclear as to what the member was objecting to. He listed four standing orders that he felt in some way had been violated but gave no reason why. I am actually unclear as to what announcement he was referring to, because I don't think he referred to one. But I would remind the member opposite that, in fact, his government was the one that introduced an entire budget off-site.

So if they are accusing us of something, I'm unclear what it may be. I would like a little further direction before he casts aspersions on the way our government is doing business without giving any detail or any actual violations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the member from Leeds—Grenville for his point of order and, as well, the government House leader. I will take this matter under advisement and provide a ruling at a subsequent date.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question for the Premier: Premier, when you were asked about your lack of a plan in light of your record-breaking $25-billion deficit, you said, "Don't just do something—stand there, think, and then do something."

Has the Premier finally emerged from his thinking place and come up with a plan to clean up the incredible mess he's made?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I think what Ontarians are asking of us is to be thoughtful in terms of the approach that we bring to balancing the budget. My honourable colleague advocates, let's say, a particular approach which we reject. He thinks that we should cut everything yesterday.

We want to do two things. We want to both chart a course towards a balanced budget and at the same time protect those services that Ontarians rely on, like their health care and their education. And there's something else they are asking us to do, which is to ensure that we also make the kinds of investments that will help grow our economy; hence the reason I was so proud to make an announcement just a few moments ago that we are going to proceed with full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds in the province of Ontario. That's the foundation for a highly skilled and educated workforce.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, all taxpayers are seeing with the lack of a plan is a Premier who has become paralyzed with his own economic mess and a second-term rot setting in. I would have expected the Premier would have had some action, not to wait for six months. I thought at one time Premier McGuinty might actually exceed expectations and come up with a plan.

Premier, one year ago the global crisis hit, but you have yet to bring forward a single item of restraint to prevent the deficit from growing even bigger still. Every hour that you stand in place thinking, $2.8 million is added to our debt. We expect to see a Premier who will lead and not be frozen in place. When will you emerge from your thinking place?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm just not going to get the positive support that I've been looking for, I guess, Speaker. I'll have to look elsewhere for that.

Again, what did Ontarians expect of us at the outset of the recession? I think they expected us to do the kinds of things that we have done. They've asked us to find a way to support the auto sector; hence the billions of dollars of support we put there. They asked us to provide retraining opportunities for people caught up in the economic dislocation who have lost their jobs though no fault of their own, so we've invested in that as well. Those are the kinds of initiatives that my honourable colleague would not and does not support. Those are the kinds of things that we have done in the face of the recession.

Now, given the fact that we've made our deficit public—it is significant; there's no doubt about that—we will begin to work together in an earnest way to find ways to chart a course towards a balanced budget without compromising public services and at the same time making investments in a stronger economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: It is clear that the second-term rot is setting in deep across the McGuinty government.

Last week, the Premier was asked about steering the economy out of this mess and his failure to have any kind of a plan to pull out of it. The Premier said, "You folks pay a lot closer attention to this than do our families. By and large, they have been focused on their own economic challenges." Premier, the economic challenges families are worried about is your failure to create any private sector jobs since your budget and the $13,500 in new debt put on each and every household. This province needs a new direction. When will it take Ontario's version of Mr. Dithers to bring forward a plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I always appreciate the enthusiasm, but I'm just not sure there is a lot of light accompanying the heat.

I'll tell you about some of the programs that we have put in place: In addition to our Second Career program, which is to help moms and dads in particular who have lost their jobs and help them get back on their feet through a one-of-a-kind program in Canada, we're also moving ahead with tax cuts to help our businesses grow stronger. We're going to move ahead with tax cuts for our families to help ease the pain which they experience, particularly as a result of lost savings through the economic recession.

We're also going to move ahead with our harmonized sales tax, which my honourable colleague knows is the right thing to do, but he shrinks from embracing his responsibility in this particular regard to help us build a stronger economy.

The fact is, we have a plan; my friend says we don't. We do; it's just not one that he embraces.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: I ask the Premier, who ordered officials to obstruct the Auditor General's investigation of the McGuinty government's billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think my honourable colleague ought to know better in this particular regard. I think the deputy minister has had an opportunity to speak to this, I think the auditor has had an opportunity to speak to this, and I think my colleague knows the truth: No such order was given by anyone.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Come on, Premier—you think the Auditor General made this up? Do you think this was just a coincidence? You have, for six months, tried to stonewall, to delay, to dither, to try to cover for your mess and your Deputy Premier, your right hand man. Now you're telling me the Auditor General—this is his fantasy? Give me a break.

Premier, you've had three weeks to get to the bottom of this interference with the Auditor General's investigation of the Ministry of Health and your eHealth boondoggle. Will you stand in your place and tell us today who gave that order? Was it you? Was it one of your ministers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In addition to a lot of heat and not very much light, my honourable colleague is given to flights of fancy. The auditor has had an opportunity to speak to this. The deputy minister has had an opportunity to speak to this. The secretary of cabinet has had an opportunity to lend direction to future activities on the part of people working within the bureaucracy.

Let me just take this opportunity, once again, to reassure the auditor and all the other officers of this government that we will always, in each and every instance, provide all the co-operation that they need to complete their work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You can see the evidence of the second-term rot: a Premier who would rather sweep this sordid tale under the carpet than give answers that taxpayers deserve.

Premier, if they blocked it, what are the consequences? Who pays the price for those misdeeds? But I think you know the answer and that's why you're trying to cover it up, and if you're not willing—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Withdrawn. I think the Premier doesn't want to tell the Legislative Assembly exactly what happened—what was the role of his office, what was the role of his minister's office and what was the role of his Deputy Premier—because you know as well as I that public servants would not put their careers on the line for no reason whatsoever. Premier, did that order actually come from you or your office?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've already answered that. My colleague is engaged in a partisan pursuit, and I understand that, but it's not the way we operate on this side of the House.

If you take a look at what we've done, in fact, in terms of increasing transparency and accountability, we've taken a number of measures. Most recently, we've said that we want to bring Cancer Care Ontario within the ambit of the freedom-of-information legislation. We took government agencies which had been removed from the sunshine list by my colleagues opposite when they were in government and brought them back into that; I'm talking about OPG and Hydro One.

We've given new authority to the auditor to take a look at our schools, our universities and our municipalities when it comes to finding out exactly what's going on in there. The fact of the matter is, we have a strong record of increasing accountability and transparency for the benefit of Ontarians.

CORPORATE TAX

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Way back, way back in 2008, the Premier rejected a call by the big banks for a lower corporate tax rate, and I'm going to quote him: "Getting into deficit is no problem, getting out is the challenge. So we want to make sure that we don't get in so deep that it becomes just extraordinarily difficult to get ourselves out of that predicament."

Ontario has a $25-billion deficit, yet the Premier is insisting on a corporate tax giveaway. Why did he say no to the banks 10 months ago but is saying yes today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the question from my honourable colleague. She's talking about our last budget. That was a budget that was supported by poverty groups, it was a budget that was supported by food banks, and it was a budget that was supported by business groups and others. It struck the right balance in terms of recognizing where we find ourselves at this point in our history and in terms of ensuring that we have competitive levels of corporate taxation.

Also, my colleague hasn't had the opportunity to speak to this very much, but we accelerated the rate at which we are going to invest in the Ontario child benefit to help families that are struggling, living in poverty, whether they're the working poor or those who don't have jobs. That's all part of a budget which we think is thoughtful and essential for the times.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier's priorities are pretty clear: Instead of making it easier to find a job, he's introducing a job-killing tax that makes life less affordable. Instead of making sure that health care is there for families that need it, he looks for ways to cut services. Instead of trying to bring the deficit under control, he gives a $4.5-billion corporate tax giveaway to the very companies that do not need it.

How could the Premier's unbalanced priorities be so out of whack with those of everyday Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would argue that it's not our budget that is unbalanced; it's my honourable colleague's perspective. I know that my honourable colleague does, in fact, support our Second Career program, and I wish she would say that. I know that she does support our Ontario child benefit, and I wish she would say that. I know that she does support investing in full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds as the foundation for a highly skilled, educated and competitive workforce, and I wish she would say that.

I also know that she does support the fact that the low-income earners in Ontario will be paying the lowest levels of personal income taxes in all of Canada. She supports that, and I just wish she would stand up and say that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know, people really are looking for a balanced, thoughtful approach from the government. Instead, though, it seems that the fix is in: for some, a multi-billion-dollar corporate tax give away; for the rest of us, a new tax, a job-killing one, on everything from hydro to your coffee in the morning; for some, $1 million a day in high-priced consultant fees; for the rest of us, cuts to local hospitals. And the Premier says more is on the way. Is the Premier being reckless or is he simply out of touch?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've always brought balance as a government and we will continue to do that. When it comes to the matter of addressing the deficit, we will continue to hear on a regular basis from the party on the left that we need to spend more, ever more and lots more, and we should pretend that the deficit is not part of our reality. From the party on the far right, we will continue to hear every day that we need to cut and hack and slash in an unthinking way. What Ontarians want is balance. They want us to recognize our fiscal reality. They want us to protect their public services.

They want us to invest in a stronger economy for tomorrow. They want us to protect their health and education. They want us to deliver their public services in a more efficient manner. That's the task that we have before us, that's the task that we really take on and that's the challenge which the Minister of Finance is taking on as he prepares his budget.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I certainly wouldn't choose $5 billion in corporate tax giveaways, I can tell the Premier that.

My next question is to the Premier. Families across the province expect their government to make quality health a top priority. Instead, they see their government cutting hospital beds, firing nurses and investing scarce public dollars in consulting contracts. If the Premier can find half a billion dollars to invest in corporate tax giveaways, a million dollars a day in consulting fees, why are Ontario families losing health care services they so desperately need?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They're not. They're not losing services. The fact of the matter is that year over year we continue to invest more in our health care services. More than that, more than just simply putting in more money, we have more doctors, we have more nurses, we have more home care, we have shorter wait times, we have more drugs being funded, more surgeries, more technologies. The fact of the matter is, we have invested significantly more. I think the health care budget is up by about a third. Since 2003, the cost of living has gone up by about 11%. So we've gone up about three times the cost of living.

We're proud of that and we're proud of the results that we continue to get for Ontarians when it comes to better quality health care.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The problem is, we all know where that health care money went; right? It went to a billion dollars at eHealth, it went to consulting contracts that were untendered. In Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, in fact, consultants are doing fine and they get lucrative contracts to recommend cuts to services. Seniors and their families are told the funding to meet their needs simply isn't available, yet this government gave McKinsey and Co. a $750,000 sole-source contract to recommend cuts. The McGuinty government needs to provide some real transparency here.

Will the Premier table all of the details of the McKinsey consulting report on the Ontario drug benefit plan, including the total cost and all of the recommendations?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that we invited McKinsey to come in and tell us a bit more about our new program that we had in place. It was a program designed to find savings by reducing the cost of the drugs that we've been buying for Ontarians. We're still buying those drugs; we want to pay less for those drugs. So far, we have found $700 million in savings. All of that has gone towards purchasing more drugs. That's the whole purpose of the program: to find a way for us, as buyers, to pay less for the drugs so that we can take the savings and put them into purchasing more drugs for Ontarians. That's what we're doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is asking people to simply accept his word, but we keep seeing health dollars—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw that comment, please.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is asking people to accept his word, but we keep seeing health dollars spent by the millions in secret deals with well-connected insiders. The McKinsey report is just the latest example. The government hid the report when it was supposed to be released with everything else. They denied it actually even existed. And now the government refuses to share the details with the people of this province. How can the Premier expect to be believed by the people that he's going to be protecting our health care when he's constantly—constantly—keeping the facts about health care spending from the people of this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The secret McKinsey report can be found online. Again, to be very clear, we put in place a new program that was designed to help us drive down the cost of certain drugs. We wanted to make sure that the program was doing well and accomplishing its intended objective. We asked McKinsey to review that for us, and they have done that.

So far, we've generated about $700 million worth of savings. All of that has been reinvested in purchasing more drugs for the people of Ontario. I think this is exactly the kind of approach that Ontarians want us to take. They want us to get the best possible value for the money they invest in health care and specifically the money they're investing in drugs. That's what we continue to do for Ontarians.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Casino Niagara's lease expires in March. Initially, the McGuinty government was ready to do another untendered deal to renew the lease, but when the casino's landlord learned the McGuinty Liberals were thinking of putting the lease to competitive bids, they retained the Premier's former director of issues management, Bob Lopinski. Now there's no competitive process. Why is there one set of rules for the Premier's ex-staff and other Liberal friends and another set of rules for the rest of us?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The rules apply to everybody. I know that the firm that Mr. Lopinski is a member of also employs Charles Harnick and Don Cousens. I also know that member and his party renewed the very same lease in 2002 in the absence of a process.

It's unfortunate that my colleague opposite can't get his facts straight, but we are pleased to deal with firms that employ former Conservative cabinet ministers, former Conservative MPPs and also support a policy that in fact his government did, and that was to renew the lease, sole-sourced, in 2002.

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, you may recall Bob Lopinski was the lobbyist who was helping the Maid of the Mist get a $25-million untendered contract renewed. In his lobbyist registration form, Lopinski admits he has a "success fee" that pays him a bonus if Canadian Niagara Hotels is awarded the multi-million-dollar lease for Casino Niagara.

The Premier said this sort of practice would stop once he introduced new rules earlier this year. How much will Bob Lopinski get if his client is awarded the new contract?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Obviously, having been deflected on his first question, he chooses to go in another direction.

Let me remind him, the lease renewal has been subject to a report from the Integrity Commissioner. We followed her advice. We're aware that New York state has already renewed their lease with the Maid of the Mist for 40 years.

Interestingly, there is a contact in this House. I understand Mr. Hudak's own principal secretary was a consultant for the Niagara Parks Commission and helped author their communication strategy on the Maid of the Mist lease renewal.

I'd rather talk about getting people back to work than slinging mud irrevocably. This government is going to work hard to get people back to work, and I'd suggest the member opposite and his colleagues back there get their facts straight, look at their own record, and they'll see that this government's a darned sight better than that government ever was on the economy and on ethics.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will come to order, please.

New question.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

The member from Kenora—Rainy River.

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Premier: During six years of the McGuinty government, Ontario has lost 350,000 manufacturing jobs, unemployment is the highest it has been in 15 years, and this government's own forecast shows that Ontario's unemployment rate is not likely to drop below 9% until after 2011. To make matters worse, the McGuinty government is promoting a new tax, the HST, which will have a further negative effect on jobs. Either the Premier doesn't care about jobs or he has no idea how to create them. Which is it, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know my honourable colleague understands that Ontario is the second-largest manufacturing centre in North America—we come in just after California. I think he understands, as well, that the global recession has a disproportionately negative impact on manufacturing.

What I hope and wish and continue to pray that he will also understand is that manufacturers in particular will benefit from a harmonized sales tax. That's why they've come out overwhelmingly in favour of a harmonized sales tax. They want to reduce the cost of their imports, they want to reduce the cost of their exports, they want to become more competitive in a globalized economy, they want to be able to retain existing employees and they want to be able to hire more.

That's why we're moving ahead with the harmonized sales tax on behalf of manufacturers and so many other sectors, and I wish my colleague would understand that and support that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm well aware that corporations will always support a corporate tax cut, but there are other studies that indicate this is going to have a negative effect on Ontario's jobs situation.

Instead of a job-killing tax, Ontario could implement an aggressive buy-Ontario policy that would promote local jobs. This government hasn't done that. Instead of a job-killing tax, this government could implement a reasonable industrial hydro rate that would help sustain jobs in the forest sector, the mining sector and in manufacturing generally. This government hasn't done that.

As the official unemployment rate nears 10%, we know the unofficial rate is actually much higher. With more families struggling to pay the bills at the end of the month, when are we going to actually see something from the McGuinty government that helps to sustain jobs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it's not a case of us not having a plan; it's a case of my colleague opposite not supporting our plan, and I understand that.

With respect to buy-Ontario provisions, I know my honourable colleague would understand that it's important that we continue to find a way to strike a balance. We want to be as aggressive as we can to promote Ontario jobs using the money that we spend through the government, but at the same time we happen to be mindful of our obligation to the international community. We've got to be respectful of the reality that we enjoy today, that we live in a globalized economy.

We have been very aggressive in particular on our Green Energy Act, so much so—my colleagues may not be keeping up on this score—that there have now been concerns raised in the European Union community and discussion of some kind of a countervailing measure to be taken against Ontario.

We will hold firm. We will do everything we can to protect our jobs, but we'll be mindful as well of our globalized reality.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. This morning, the Ontario Hospital Association put out a press release to propose that the government extend the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the hospital sector. The association's president, Tom Closson, said, "While Ontario's hospitals are extraordinarily transparent and accountable, their justifiable pride in past achievements should not prevent us from moving to become even more transparent as a sector tomorrow."

Minister, Ontarians want to have confidence that their hospitals are using tax dollars wisely. Ontario's hospitals say they are willing to open themselves up to additional scrutiny. So I ask the minister, is the OHA's proposal something that this government will consider?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to thank my colleague for the question.

I am very happy to be able to reiterate just how important transparency and accountability are, not only in our agencies and boards but right across government.

I know Ontarians want to be assured that every dime we spend on health care goes to improving health care. When I first became Minister of Health, that was one of the priorities I discussed in this House. I'm very pleased to know that the OHA shares our goals, and I welcome their desire to fall under our FOI legislation.

As Tom Closson said, "Ontario's hospitals value their communities' confidence and trust.…" So do we. That's why I'm going to be working with the OHA and Ontario's hospitals, as well as the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Together, we're going to look at what steps we can take next to make sure that our hospitals are even more open and accountable than they are today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I think Ontarians across the province are going to benefit from more openness in the hospital sector. After all, with $15.5 billion in annual funding, hospitals take up a significant share of the province's health care budget. Ontarians want to know how this money is being spent. They expect their government to do everything it can to ensure that Ontarians' valuable tax dollars are being used wisely, especially in health care.

I ask the Minister of Health: What else is this government doing to increase accountability? I know Ontarians want you to do more.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, thank you to the member.

I'm very pleased to tell the House that, as of January 1, 2010, Cancer Care Ontario will fall under Ontario's freedom-of-information act. It's an important step our government is taking to ensure that the agency is more accountable to Ontario taxpayers.

Since 2003, our government has added more than 80 organizations to the list of those that can be subject to FOI requests, and we made these changes to ensure that we're more accountable to Ontarians.

We've also expanded the powers of the Auditor General. We've opened up our hospitals, our schools, our colleges, our universities and our crown corporations to value-for-money audits. By April 1, 2010, expenses for OPS senior management, for cabinet ministers, for political staff and for senior executives at Ontario's 22 largest agencies will be posted online.

Moving forward, we're going to continue to look at ways that we can do more to make—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

AGENCY SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, again referencing Bob Lopinski, Premier McGuinty's former political aide turned well-connected lobbyist. The last we heard, he hadn't quite earned his success fee for the Maid of the Mist deal.

Last week, Minister Smith said the 25-year untendered lease with the Maid of the Mist still had to go to cabinet. There have been three cabinet meetings, apparently, since that comment was made—perhaps it wasn't last week. Three cabinet meetings, I understand; that's what we're advised.

Can the minister tell us, did cabinet ignore the Premier's edict against untendered deals for his friend and former staffer Mr. Lopinski?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I appreciate the question. As I've told the House before, our government and its agencies are committed to openness, transparency and accountability.

The Niagara Parks Commission has reviewed its decision on the lease, as we asked them to, in light of the audit that was undertaken and the governance review. They've made a recommendation to the ministry, and the ministry is doing its due diligence.

As I've advised the member on the opposite side previously, I'm not going to speculate on how cabinet will decide on this issue. It will go forward in due course. I appreciate the question and the ongoing interest in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: You would think the decision to open the lease to competitive bidding would be a no-brainer given the red ink that's spewing out of the parks commission and the historic deficit that this government is running. The point of competitive bids is to get maximum value for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

There's another potential bidder, we're told, willing to submit a tender worth at least $100 million more than the deal that Bob Lopinski is lobbying for. That additional revenue, Minister, you have to admit, would come in handy given your record deficit.

If the McGuinty Liberals aren't looking for a way to help a former insider get his success fee, then why haven't they announced a competitive process for this bid? What's the delay? What's happening here?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I would just remind the member opposite, as did the Minister of Finance earlier to another question, that the Counsel Public Affairs firm also houses former Conservative MPP Don Cousens and, of course, the former Attorney General of the Conservative government, Charles Harnick, which the member for Leeds—Grenville may have personal issues with, but I don't think he would cast aspersions on the entire firm.

I would also remind the member that the leader of the official opposition's principal secretary formerly worked as an adviser to the Niagara Parks Commission and has helped in crafting a communications strategy around the renewal of the Maid of the Mist lease. So I'm not really sure where the member opposite is coming from on this, but I can assure him that the ministry is reviewing the decision that was made by the commission and it will be going forward to cabinet in due course.

L'hon. Dalton McGuinty: Je passe cette question à la ministre des Affaires francophones.

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Premièrement, je voudrais remercier la membre du Nouveau Parti démocratique pour son intérêt dans les affaires francophones.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: S'auto-féliciter pour un rapport accablant, ce n'est pas ça qui va faire avancer les choses. Cela me laisse sous-entendre soit que vous n'avez pas lu le rapport, soit que vous prenez les francophones qui l'ont lu pour des valises, puis vous ne reconnaissez pas l'urgence d'agir pour corriger l'état qui était donné dans ce rapport, ou, pire encore, que vous avez lu le rapport, puis vous vous fichez éperdument des opportunités que vous aviez pour faire bouger les choses et pour faire avancer les services aux francophones. Laquelle des trois options les francophones devraient-ils retenir?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je pense que les francophones en Ontario sont les bons juges de ce que ce gouvernement-ci a fait pour l'avancement des francophones.

Si j'étais à la place de M me Gélinas, je regarderais plutôt ce que leur parti a fait en ce qui concerne les francophones lorsqu'ils étaient au pouvoir. Il y a eu des coupures de budget, il y a eu des réductions de personnel, tandis que nous, nous avons augmenté le budget des Affaires francophones, nous avons créé le poste de commissaire, nous avons investi d'une façon majeure dans l'éducation, dans les soins de santé—

L'hon. Jim Watson: TFO.

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: —l'indépendence de TFO. Je pourrais continuer. Je pense que les francophones seront les juges. Je veux terminer par l'Hôpital Montfort, qui me tient beaucoup à cœur; cela a été le plus grand investissement dans la francophonie dans l'histoire de l'Ontario, et cela a été fait par notre gouvernement.

TAXATION

Mr. Eric Hoskins: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, as governments face the global economic recession, understandably, job creation has increasingly become a major focus. Good jobs will help pull people out of poverty and allow them to provide for their families. Maintaining existing employment and creating new employment will go a long way to help those in need, but we all understand that not everyone will be able to get back to work overnight. Some people, including many residents of my riding of St. Paul's, are relying on the government and the non-profit sector for support.

The HST has been mainly communicated as a job-creating tool and there are serious concerns surrounding the effect of the HST on those who are already facing tough choices on a limited income. Minister, will the HST place an additional burden on low-income Ontarians, forcing them to pay more when they can least afford it?

Hon. Mr. Wilkinson: I want to thank my new colleague for the question, and I would refer him to a quote from John Stapleton, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who says in regard to our budget, "This is a budget that favours low-income people, and the working poor most of all because when you look at all the benefits, it is clear that the working poor and those with low wages are going to be better off as a result of the budget measures."

What are those measures? Number one, we are going to cut the personal income tax rate on the first $37,000 worth of income, and we will have the lowest personal income tax rate in this country. Some 90,000 Ontarians will not be paying personal income tax as a result of our reforms. Particularly for those who are struggling, we are more than doubling the GST rebate they're receiving now. We're adding an additional $260 for every child and adult in a family, and that is designed specifically to ensure that our people at the lowest ends are in a better position than they are today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Eric Hoskins: Helping to get people back to work is the number one action we can do to assist low-income Ontarians. Income tax exemptions, tax credits and transitional cheques will help struggling families as we move forward with a new form of taxation. Targeted exemptions will greatly assist families in the short term and over the long term. These exemptions include children's clothing, infant and child car seats, books, groceries, rent and condo fees, prescription drugs and medical devices.

Minister, because of their importance to families, many social advocates would like as much clarification as possible when looking at these exemptions. What has been the reaction to the HST in the poverty and low-income sector?

Hon. Mr. Wilkinson: I say to the member that many, many have weighed in after taking a look at the comprehensive nature of our tax reform. They have seen through the facile analysis of just seeing part of our tax reform and are looking at the entire package. What they see is that we're putting people in a better position starting next year. We are cutting personal income taxes on January 1. The HST does not come in until July 1.

Let's talk in real terms. If a family receives an additional $260 per member, what is $260? It represents an 8% tax on $3,250 worth of purchases. For most low-income families, a single mom with two children, it is a substantial amount of money, because we want to make sure that they have more money in their pockets. Yes, as a society we are going to modernize our tax system, but we will not leave those people with the least advantage disadvantaged by our reforms. That's exactly why we're moving and reforming our income tax system—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has repeatedly said that he takes the experience of the Marshall family in St. Catharines very seriously. We recently received a copy of a letter sent by John Ayre, assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal law division, to Jody McIntosh, a resident of St. Catharines who wrote to express her concerns about this case. Mr. Ayre stated that the crown withdrew the charge in the Marshall case because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. But Mr. Essert, the Niagara crown attorney, told Ms. Marshall he wasn't sure about that point and said that the charges were withdrawn in order to avoid recidivism.

Attorney General, there is serious confusion about this issue that needs to be clarified. Can you tell us why the charges were really dropped in the Marshall case?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We take any violation of one's personal sense of security, their privacy or their dignity very, very seriously at all levels. The crown did review the charge, the facts and the circumstances. The crown, in a very extensive letter to the family, indicated the reasons. The member also now has an additional correspondence, I understand, from the chief prosecutor.

If there is further evidence, if there is other evidence, I would ask everyone to bring it to the attention of the police because I know that they will investigate, as they always do, very thoroughly. But the reasons for withdrawing the charge have been addressed in terms of the fact that it was not appropriate to proceed in the circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: In fact, this issue hasn't been addressed. On September 29 of this year, the Attorney General said in response to my question that this issue has already been dealt with in court. But in fact, it was never dealt with in court in terms of either a plea or a trial and a resolution. Despite a videotaped, properly obtained confession, the charges against the accused were withdrawn with some vague suggestion that there was perhaps no reasonable prospect of conviction.

In fact, as the Attorney General knows, if there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on those charges, what should have happened was a further discussion with the police with a view to laying other charges. That was simply not done in this case. Instead, the charges simply vanished. The charge was withdrawn with no record and no penalty.

Attorney General, you're asking the Marshall family, her family and the people of Ontario to trust that justice has been done, yet no one knows what happened in this case. Will you please tell us?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As the member, I believe, knows and should know, the charge actually was dealt with in court. It was dealt with in court by being withdrawn; that is being dealt with in court. It was withdrawn. It was withdrawn after a very thorough review by the crown of the evidence that had been provided as a result of the police investigation.

I know it's challenging in circumstances such as this, but the crown is duty bound to take the evidence and the charges laid and determine the appropriateness of proceeding. The crown did that in this case. The charge was withdrawn, and I know if there's any further information or evidence or incident, it should be directed to the police for their review and consideration.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Since the Port Colborne emergency room shut down this summer, the Welland hospital has seen a 20% increase in patients. The Welland hospital was already struggling with capacity issues and now a code gridlock has been declared.

Niagara Falls is also feeling the strain of Fort Erie's emergency room closure. The fact is, emergency rooms were closed without proper planning.

How are the remaining ERs in Niagara region supposed to cope with an influx of new patients when they're already at capacity?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do know that there is, understandably, anxiety in a community whenever there are changes made, especially in the way our health care is delivered because we so value our health care system. But I want to stress that our government's commitment to strengthening and improving health care in the Niagara region is as strong and stronger than it's ever been. I'm confident that the LHIN board continues to act in the best interests of the people of Niagara, making decisions that will ensure the sustainability of the health care system in Niagara.

I think its important that we actually acknowledge the significant investments that have been made in the region. They've seen an increase of over 43%; $88 million more is going into that region for health care than there was when we took office.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think that this minister needs to acknowledge the grave situation that we are in, in the Niagara region. The Niagara Region Public Health unit estimates that in the event of a pandemic, ER visits are going to soar to close to 700 per day and hospitalizations are going to reach close to 2,000. Yet this government has closed more than 100 hospital beds in this region. It's a recipe for disaster.

How can the government find a million dollars a day for consultants and contracts that are untendered and not fund the desperately needed emergency rooms in Port Colborne and Fort Erie?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We do know that, as we are seeing now the impact of the H1N1 pandemic here in Ontario, there will be added pressure on hospital emergency rooms. It is too early right now to anticipate what the actual numbers will be, but we will see more demand on our emergency rooms across the province. That is one reason why it is very, very important that everyone in Ontario get the H1N1 vaccination as soon as it is available. It is the right thing to do, not just for an individual; it's also the right thing to do for your family members, for those around you, for those you work with.

If we all do our part, take that H1N1 vaccine, it will have the impact of reducing some of the pressures on our emergency rooms.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: My question is for the Attorney General, and I ask the question with over 20 years' experience in community safety and crime prevention. There are things that we know. We know victims of domestic violence are largely women and children. We know that women suffering from domestic abuse face challenges when seeking relief. And we know this government offers services in the immediate aftermath, throughout the criminal justice process, as women rebuild their lives. We know a restraining order is available to prevent a partner or a former partner from harming children physically or emotionally.

Yet the lack of a means by which to enforce breaches of restraining orders can weaken the effectiveness of the order and fail to provide women the protection they need. Can the Attorney General tell this House what the government is doing to strengthen enforcement of restraining orders to help protect women and children from domestic violence?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Kitchener—Conestoga raises a very important question. I know members of this House have spoken to it on many occasions for over a decade, and members of the legal community, whether judges or lawyers, victims' rights advocates and others, have said we need to strengthen restraining orders. That's why this government introduced and last May passed legislation, and on October 15 the new strengthened restraining order protections came into force. What do they provide? First, a breach of an order can be enforced as a violation of the Criminal Code—much greater strength.

Secondly, there is a plain language guide. Third, there is a uniform order so the police will have the same order around the province, providing for better protections for women and children, all those who now live in fear.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: I'm proud to be part of a government that's moving in the right direction to give women better access to restraining orders to help protect them and their children. Many of the vulnerable individuals who benefit from the protection of enhanced restraining orders also come in contact with the family justice system at some point. We know that when Ontarians become engaged with Family Court, they're often at a difficult time in their lives, with family breakdown or distress. The stress and cost of Family Court proceedings can sometimes be overwhelming, especially at these difficult times.

Could the Attorney General please inform this House about how this government is making the family justice system effective, accessible and affordable for these vulnerable Ontarians?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Again, the member, no doubt as a result of her advocacy and familiarity with the issues, raises some very important points. Two things: First, in the legislation that we passed, there were some additional items. There is required financial disclosure yearly for those who are paying support, so there's no more hide-and-seek of assets. That will make it easier for those receiving support to get what they should be receiving. Secondly, there are new rules with respect to the division of what is often the most important asset: pensions.

It used to be that families involved in a family dispute spent thousands of dollars and a lot of time arguing over the rules to divide pensions. Third, in custody proceedings there are new rules to make sure that the necessary information is before judges before they grant custody of a child to a non-parent. Finally, we're looking at the family process to make it faster—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. You are aware of a program named the attendance support management pilot program. The program applies to staff within the corrections bargaining unit. Minister, staff within your ministry have approached me, and a number of them are concerned and disturbed that if they are injured while on duty and placed on WSIB they are then subject to a level one interview to discuss their absenteeism. I'd like you to explain why would you allow dedicated employees to be subjected to what amounts to an intimidating and stressful interview just because they're injured while protecting Ontarians?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I think I can say categorically, as the minister responsible for correctional services, never has there been the level of co-operation between the administration within correctional services and the union representing the workers.

Our workers do very important work. For the first time in a very long time, they are respected for the jobs they are doing. We believe it is imperative that that dialogue between management and labour is ongoing. That is the approach we have taken, and that is the approach we will continue to take.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, Minister, they'll certainly be impressed with that answer.

I'm told by employees performing the interviews that the ASMPP program is simply wrong, and those are the people performing the interviews. What is the purpose of the interviews? Any employee injured on the job and receiving therapy or attending a medical examination has their status reported directly to WSIB, not a third party person in the ministry. These correctional workers protect Ontarians and want to be treated like all other Ontarians.

I've had numerous complaints about this program. I'm asking you today if you will commit to an immediate and complete removal of this program of intimidation of employees?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: What I can commit to today, what I've committed to in the past and what I will commit to in the future, is that there will be enhanced dialogue between management and labour. That has already taken place, that is taking place, and that will continue to take place.

You see, the difference is that under a previous government that was in power from 1995 to 2003, they did everything to get rid of OPSEU and correctional services officers. Then, before them, from 1990 to 1995, the NDP government was so busy cutting, slashing, burning and not building any capacity. We will continue to build capacity. We will continue to dialogue with our employees, because we understand the importance of doing that type of thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour. We don't need to hear this government pass the buck to the federal bankruptcy and insolvency laws. We want to know what the provincial government should have, could have and would have done.

Last year, I walked the line with shut out Progressive Moulded Products employees, many with 10 to 25 years of service and mostly women, who arrived at work to find out they had lost their jobs. On top of this, these employees lost their severance and termination pay when their employer closed the doors without notice.

What does the minister have to say to these women and men who are still trying to get justice, still trying to get their severance and wages, but have had absolutely no help from this government?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It is always difficult to hear that anyone, a loved one, someone we know, a family member, any Ontarian has lost their job. These workers worked hard. They have put in countless hours, many countless years. I say to the member that—and he's heard me speak in this House—we continue to urge the federal government, which has exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy and insolvency under that act. We want to move those workers from the back of the line to the front of the line when it comes to securing wages that they're owed.

We have also encouraged the federal government to increase the wage earner protection program to better help these workers who have lost their jobs, but we are doing everything possible to protect workers who have lost their jobs, and our hearts go out to them.

Mr. Paul Miller: I guess the minister didn't read my Bill 6.

These out-of-work employees understand there is little chance of receiving what is owed to them, yet they continue to fight so that future generations can be spared this injustice. Today, they're holding a silent vigil—silence that represents a response from this government. They are still owed more than $30 million in severance and termination pay. The Minister of Labour did absolutely nothing to help these workers with the labour laws that are already in effect.

Stop passing the buck. And worse, Bill 6, which would have protected the severance and termination pay of these workers, is held up on the public agenda by your government. Why are the McGuinty Liberals deliberately keeping severance and termination pay from Ontario employees whose employers close the doors on their livelihoods and lives?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I listened to the member—but the member is well aware that this government has brought forward protections to help workers here in Ontario. The member has heard me speak in this House about our advocacy for all workers. We look to increase workers' benefits, we look to increase workers' protection—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just remind the honourable member that he just asked the question. I would ask him to listen to the answer.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I do understand the emotion when anyone has lost their job. It touches that employee, it touches their family, it touches the community at large, and it does have a serious impact on our Ontario economy. That is why we continue to urge the federal government to do the right thing: to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to move these workers from the back of the line to the front of the line, to ensure that they are—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question?

TOURISM

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: This question is for our Minister of Tourism. The peak summer season for travel, as you know, is now coming to an end. Of course, there is no doubt that this year the economic downturn has had an impact on tourist operations in the province. In addition to the economic challenges, as you'll appreciate, the tourism industry has also experienced other factors which have impacted both the province and the city of Toronto.

For example, fewer US travellers visited the province because of the fluctuating Canadian dollar, the state of the general economy and, of course, over the implementation of passport requirements. Minister, what is the government doing to help the vital tourism industry in the greater Toronto area?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Thank you to the member for Etobicoke North.

Yes, as we've discussed in this House before, the tourism sector is suffering through a very difficult year, but we recognize it to be an economic driver in the province and, through our Celebrate Ontario program, have invested in 224 festivals and events, including this year in Contact Toronto Photography. This festival, which is held in the month of May in Toronto, focused attention on 1,200 local, national and international artists at 225 venues across the city of Toronto.

I had the opportunity of meeting with Darcy Killeen, the executive director of this great festival, and he told me that over 1.6 million people attended the festival—an 8% increase over last year—and 30,000 of those visitors were new to the festival altogether. The total visitor expenditures this year were estimated to be about $11 million, a 23% increase over last year. This festival has now been recognized as the largest photography festival in the world.

We are incredibly proud to be a supporter of Contact photography, and we are incredibly proud of this festival in Toronto and Ontario.

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 183,

An Act to revise and modernize the law related to apprenticeship training and trades qualifications and to establish the Ontario College of Trades / Projet de loi 183, Loi visant à réviser et à moderniser le droit relatif à la formation en apprentissage et aux qualifications professionnelles et à créer l'Ordre des métiers de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1138 to 1143.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 59; the nays are 25.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1147 to 1500.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROY E. CARTER MEMORIAL PARK

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to advise this House of the dedication of the Roy E. Carter park in Blackstock, Ontario, on November 9 this year. Flying Officer Carter was a navigator on a Halifax bomber. He survived when his plane was shot down in the Netherlands on June 17, 1944.

Sadly, Mr. Carter was executed by the Gestapo about two weeks later, along with a flyer from England and one from Australia. The three were taking shelter